All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

That was his whole purpose in coming as a man in the first place. To save his people for their sins. The only way to do that was to be the perfect sacrifice. Being God, he *could have* saved himself at any time he wanted. He chose to sacrifice himself so that his people could have a right relationship with their God.

I myself am not particularly religious, but I was raised in a religious manner.

It seems to me that the entire "blame" issue seems to overlook some pretty important issues (and I'll not address the issue of Jesus and God being the same... since Jesus is referred to as the "son of God" I will refer to them as seperate entities... even tho that may not be so).

- Did God know that Jesus was going to die?

- Did God want Jesus to die?

- Could God have stopped the death of Jesus if desired?

- Did God put Jesus on earth?

It seems to me that many people overlook God's intentions.

And, if you do believe in God being "all mighty" how does that jive with what man did vs. what God wanted to happen?

And... don't even get me started on destiny/fate vs. free will... but, I think that is definitely intertwined in here somehow.

I has to do with love. God could have created Adam and Eve as perfect beings that blindly did what he wanted. Where is the love there? Instead he created them innocent with the ability to choose to obey. God knowing they would "fall" into sin created a way that people could be reconciled back to a Holy, righteous, God who cannot wink at sin.

Q: Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
A: Certainly. The Bible states the plan was created even before the foundations of this world were set.

It was the only way to forgive His people for their sins. -- IANAC, but I think I understand Christian mythology quite well. So I don't agree. John the Baptist was born without being tainted with the original sin -- else, he couldn't have baptised Jesus and actually "wash" him from the original sin due to his human nature. So this was not the only way -- because God is infinitely powerful -- but this was the better way to have Christians have a personal relationship with Him. How could have God demonstrated

Well, you'll hear different perspectives from those who call themselves Christian. I unapologetically represent myself as a "true Christian" and reject Catholicism as well as most Protestant denominations. As I stated in my original journal entry, the idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine and thus not a part of my religion.

I've never heard Catholics express anything about John the Baptist in regard to original sin or not: I've only heard that claim made about Mary and Jesus

--J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

The idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine. I quite like this theology, but living in a Catholic country, I'm obviously more familiar with the Catholic doctrine, which, IIRC, teaches that babies are not sin-free, even Jesus. I may be wrong, I'll have to check my sources.

Most Catholics nowadays think that baptism is the only way to wash away the original sin. This is actually not a truly Catholic doctrine -- Augustine explains it quite well in the City of God: during the first ce

The Biblical teaching is that baptism is for washing away sin (Acts 22:16), but not for washing away original sin; it washes away one's own sin. In the New Testament noone EVER delayed baptism. (Examples: Acts 2:41, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 16:33, especially the last one.) The doctrine is that Christ is coming at any minute (I Thessalonians 5) completely unexpectedly and that after that event (or, of course, one's own death, which could also happen at any minute) there is no longer any chance t

--J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

The Biblical teaching is that sin may only be forgiven through a perfect blood sacrifice of immense worth and that only Jesus satisfied that sacrifice.

Yes, but who decided that would be the method? And when He decided it, didn't he already know he would send his Son to die? It's sorta like me deciding that I will buy a Mac, and then saying "the only computer I can buy is a Mac," as though it were my only choice to begin with.

I agree that Jesus is the way, but not that God couldn't have chosen another w

John the Baptist was a sinner. There are people "declared" righteous by God because of their belief in God and the Messiah.

However, if you read the scripture John the Baptist was confused himself when Jesus asked to be baptised. It wasn't because Jesus had sin, for he was sinless. That is why Jesus could be the perfect sacrifice. Jesus answers him "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It was a picture. In the OT the Aaronic priesthood was anointed with oil, so this

I checked in the Catholic Encyclopedia [newadvent.org], and indeed, it seems that John the Baptist was cleansed from the stain of original sin in the womb. I think that Augustine wrote about this. Add this to the list of truths that differ between the different kinds of Christianisms.

I think what the passage means is that John the Baptist was the first to receive the Holy Spirit, just as the disciples did later in Acts, and as Christians have been since then. If that is the sense it is meant I'd agree, but I don't consider myself today not "tainted by original sin" just because the Holy Spirit is in me. Maybe it's just a semantic point.

Free will is simple this...I can choose my individual actions within my nature. Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. After a person is saved I can choose to do the will of God because now I still have a sin nature but now my *spirit* is quickened. As simple as that. Free will has been so twisted to mean anything that it means nothing in most contexts.

Just so you know, I (and the Bible) disagree with the statement by RobertX that Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. This would make it impossible to be saved, since you have to choose God to be saved.

The idea that people are inherently sinful is not found in the Bible, whether it be the idea that people inherit sin from Adam (contradicted in Ezekiel 18) or some other version. However, the Bible does teach that everyone sins (at least, those

--J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

Just so you know, I (and the Bible) disagree with the statement by RobertX that Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. This would make it impossible to be saved, since you have to choose God to be saved.

Not at all. The idea -- which is supported by the Bible -- is that a person will not choose God until God works in his heart. See Ephesians 1. I don't come down on any side of this debate, but there is clearly support for both positions.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -- Romans 3:10-12

Why? Because God has not done a work on their hear and made their spirit alive.